Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Kaur vs Director Rural Development And ... on 9 May, 2023
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
CWP No. 29709 of 2022 -1- 2023:PHHC:066483-DB
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CWP No. 29709 of 2022
Date of Decision: 09.5.2023
Joginder Kaur .....Petitioner
Versus
Director Rural Development and Panchayats, .....Respondents
Punjab and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Ram Kumar Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Jalota, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No. 3-Gram Panchayat.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petitioner instituted a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961), thus before the learned Collector concerned. Thereins, the present petitioner impleaded Gram Panchayat of village Dagam, Block and Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur through its Sarpanch Smt. Surinder Kaur, thus as defendant/respondent. In the petition (supra), the petitioner herein claimed the relief of a declaratory decree being made in her favour, that she, as such be declared a valid owner in possession of the disputed land. The learned Collector concerned, through a decision made on the said petition, on 17.5.2017, and, to which Annexure P-5, is assigned, declined the espoused declaratory relief to the petitioner herein. The above declining order, as made on the petition (supra), led the petitioner to institute thereagainst a statutory appeal bearing No. 63 of 2017, before the competent appellate authority GURPREET SINGH 2023.05.15 17:38 concerned. However, through a decision made thereons, on 14.10.2022, to I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP No. 29709 of 2022 -2- 2023:PHHC:066483-DB which Annexure P-6 is assigned, the learned Appellate Authority concerned, after recording a verdict of dismissal on the said statutory appeal, thus proceeded to affirm the prior thereto decision (Annexure P-5), as became initially recorded by the Collector concerned. The above concurrently made verdicts of dismissal, on the plaintiff's suit, has led her, to access this Court through the filing of the instant writ petition.
2. A reading of the verdicts, as became drawn against the present petitioner, reveals that despite the petitioner averring in the plaint, that she had become a lawful owner in possession of the lands, occurring within the abadi deh, besides hers appending with the plaint a rough site plan, yet both the learned Courts below rather disbelieved the said averment. The non-assigning of credence to the above bald averment, became rested on the factum, that no documentary proof, thus comprised in the jamabandi(s) relating to the petition lands, became ever tendered into evidence, nor any valid exhibition mark became made thereons. Moreover, the rough site plan, as became appended with the plaint, also became not assigned any credence, as obviously it was not a substitute of a validly drawn tatima from the masawi concerned, but was drawn by a person, other than the Patwari of the halqa concerned, who otherwise, is vested with a lawful authority to, from the masawi concerned, prepare a tatima, and, supply to the petitioner, so that thereafter it becomes tendered into evidence, and, obviously thereafter its becoming lawfully exhibited.
3. Therefore, though obviously the above made concurrent verdicts against the petitioner, on the petition (supra), do not warrant this Court, to make any interference with either Annexure P-5 or with Annexure P-6, yet the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vigorously argued before this Court, that yet the verdict of the learned Civil Court concerned, which became rendered, GURPREET SINGH 2023.05.15 17:38 on 24.12.2013, upon Civil Suit No. 15 of 2011, and, to which Annexure P-7 is I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP No. 29709 of 2022 -3- 2023:PHHC:066483-DB assigned, whereby the learned Civil Court concerned, granted the espoused decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, was thus required to be assigned value by the authorities below, whereas, with no value becoming assigned to Annexure P-7 by both the competent authorities below, rather results in the said verdicts being flawed.
4. The above argument, as addressed before this Court, is meritless, and, obviously is required to be rejected. The reason for rejecting the above argument, is based on the premise, that in the array of defendants, in the civil suit (supra), the Gram Panchayat concerned, never became impleaded as a defendant, thereby it became precluded to contest the said suit. Since issue No. 6, which becomes extracted hereinafter, though became struck on the pleadings of the parties, yet the said issue became answered in favour of the plaintiff, but merely for the reason, that the defendants in the said civil suit becoming proceeded against ex parte.
"Whether suit is bad for non joinder of Gram Panchayat of Village Dagham and also bad for misjoinder of defendants ? OPD"
5. Needless to say the decree of the civil Court, thus assigning the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to the plaintiff therein, rather in respect of the lands, which may be the disputed lands, rather for applying the said verdict to the petition lands, but required, the impleadment thereins of the Gram Panchayat concerned, given the latter being both a just and proper party, to contest the said suit, and, to lead evidence in respect of the above issue. Thereby the Gram Panchayat concerned, may have become enabled to make an effort to convince, the learned trial Judge concerned, that the decree (supra), as became made on the civil suit concerned, was not liable to be passed, as the lands in respect whereof the said decree was made, thus were shamlat deh GURPREET SINGH lands. Moreover, in the event of non-impleadment of a just and proper party in 2023.05.15 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP No. 29709 of 2022 -4- 2023:PHHC:066483-DB the said civil suit, and, also the result of the defendants thereins, being proceeded against ex parte, that thereby it appears, that merely for the above reason, the above issue has been answered in favour of the plaintiff.
6. Therefore, the effect of the above, is that, the decree of the Civil Court concerned, when is made only to protect the possession, if any, which has been assumed over the petition land, by the petitioner, yet when it does not curtail the rights, if any, of the Gram Panchayat concerned, over the petition land(s).
7. In consequence, the decree of the Civil Court concerned (Annexure P-7), does only assign leverage, if any, to the petitioner to only protect her possession over the disputed land, as the prime requirement for the passing of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, is only, the assumption of possession lawful or unlawful of the plaintiff over the petition land, yet does not thereby confer any valid title over the petition land in the plaintiff in the civil suit concerned.
8. Therefore, when title in the said civil suit was never claimed nor became determined in favour of the plaintiff therein, therefore there was no curtailment of rights of the Gram Panchayat concerned, to yet assert title over the petition land, through its contesting the civil suit at hand rather as a defendant.
9. Though, the Gram Panchayat concerned, may have instituted the instant civil suit against the plaintiff, and, thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues, that thereby the Gram Panchayat concerned, may have proven its right, title and interest over the petition lands, but since the suit has been instituted on behalf of the petitioner herein, thus impleading the panchayat concerned, as a defendant in the civil suit at hand. Therefore, he argues that the Gram Panchayat concerned, was thus required to adduce evidence but GURPREET SINGH 2023.05.15 17:38 displaying, that it has valid title as owner over the petition lands, whereas, the I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CWP No. 29709 of 2022 -5- 2023:PHHC:066483-DB said evidence become, not adduced in the instant civil suit, thus the concurrent decrees rendered against the petitioner, are not amenable to be assigned any value.
10. Even in the above argument addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is meritless. The reason is but simple, that the onus became cast upon the plaintiff to prove, through adducing documentary evidence, as, comprised in the jamabandi, relating to the petition land(s), thus supporting the said averment, that the petition lands were occurring in abadi deh. Necessarily thereby alone the abadi, as, purportedly raised on the abadi deh lands, by the petitioner herein, would be unamenable for any interference, being made therewith, thus by the Gram Panchayat concerned, as only on abadis raised on abadi deh lands, the Gram Panchayat concerned, has no right, title or interest. However, as above stated, the above pleading is merely bald and simpliciter pleading, and, is not supported by any documentary evidence.
11. In the wake of the above, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition, and, is constrained to dismiss it. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed. The impugned orders are maintained, and, affirmed.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE May 09, 2023 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2023.05.15 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement